Wki Theremin Page For Second Gen / Modern Thereminists

Recently, I've been made aware of systematic redactions of links, or references pertaining to various theremin artists from the wikipedia theremin page.

After talking at great length with one of the editors of this page, and having examined the current wiki page for my self, I've come to realize that this particular page is not the appropriate place to enter articles which pertain to modern thereminists, and their contributions to the theremin community.

I believe the current wiki theremin page should be the domain of fist generation thereminists, and the first theremins, and those who built them.

That having been said, I believe that in order to help reduce some of the bad blood which has resulted from the systematic redactions from the original wiki theremin page, which I now belive was in good faith, and well intended to preserve the integrity of that article's continuity, a new wiki theremin page should be constructed which will allow for the deposition of verifyable, credible, and non-self promoting articles which feature the second generation of thereminists, the instruments they play, and those who built the "modern" theremins.

The major questions here are: What constitutes a second generation, or modern thereminist.

What constitutes verifiable, and credible references to a given artist or builder's story?

I've considered setting up such a page where modern theremin artists, and builders who have made significant contributions which can be verified via unbiassed media related interviews, i.e. television, news-paper, magazine, and radio can be given their rightful place in theremin history, without cluttering, and blurring the lines besteen founding, and modern thereminist / builder.

I realize Thereminworld is prettymuch like this in many respects. However, there are factors involved here which limit such info to the realm of hear-say, speculation, suppositin, oppinion.

A formal wiki page for modern theremin related articles based on the model of the current wiki is, in my oppinion called for at this time.

I'd appreciate any guidance in this matter.

As I'm still not able to recieve responces via TW postings, please contact me via my e-mail.

I'll try to check this post directly over the next few days.

Thank you for your time.

[i]What constitutes verifiable, and credible references to a given artist or builder's story?[/i]

Having done a bit of Wiki editing, I've had some experience in this.

Wiki entries must be [b]notable, verifiable,[/b] and [b]non-point-of-view[/b]

Verifiable, in Wiki-speak, means an entry must be referenced elsewhere in published form. This usually means in print from a reputable publisher, but references to films, television shows or major label record releases are sometimes acceptable.

What this means is, if the references to a particular person exist only on web pages, YouTube videos, discussion forums (like this one) or self-produced publications (such as self-published books or self-released recordings), those are not considered "verifiable".

Meaning, naturally, that I'm not eligible personally, but then probably neither are you, Thomas. Which seems silly, but unless you have newspaper or magazine references, a mention in a book from a major publisher about theremins, or a major label recording, so far as Wiki is concerned, you aren't "notable".

Also, these limitations are even more strongly in effect regarding [i]living persons[/i]. Wiki uber-editors are extremely picky over articles about a living person. This is basically due to the fact that dead people can't sue for libel.

The other strict limitiation is that all article entries must be [i]neutral[/i] – un-opinionated or as Wiki puts it, NPOV ("non-point of view".) You can't write, "_______ is known as the greatest thereminist of her generation" or "the show at Skronkfest was one of the most virtuoso performances ever" becuase that's an opinion, not a verifiable fact.

People who would edit Wiki articles have to keep in mind that [b]truth[/b] is not the standard, but rather [b]verifiability[/b]. Maybe a certain performer IS the greatest thereminist ever, but even if 99% of the thereminists you know agree, there's no way to PROVE it objectively. However, if an "outside" music critic [i]wrote[/i] that it was the greatest performance ever, and that was published in, say, Rolling Stone, you could include it by writing, "music critic ______ wrote in Rolling Stone magazine...." and provide a footnote to the date and issue number.

So, the first step in producing the article you're proposing is to gather references that are NOT taken from the WWW. For example, (though I don't think she's properly "2nd Gen") Lydia Kavina is [i]notable[/i] for her family connections, and [i]verifiable[/i] by her video and audio recordings and mentions in various print publications. As long as you don't write anything like "one of the greatest thereminists ever!" then the article about her will probably survive the first round of "fast-track deletion."

I hope this helps.

Joe Max, this does help incredibly. Thank you.

Certainly an established set of guidelines to this affect will need to by provided for authors to avoid legal issues with "live" artists, and manufacturers.

One question I have is, I do have several printed news, and magazine articles, as well as radio interviews about me. Is it ethical for me to mention those, or should I leave this to an objective third party to avoid "self promotion"?

Thanks for your information.

Hi Thomas,

If you've got the references, that's what matters. Newspaper accounts and magazine articles are valid references.

Here's the Wiki page dealing with Verfiablity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V

Policy on biography material about living persons is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP

The policy toward writing about yourself is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUTO

Also check out the policies on "no original research" (IOW, previously published reference material only):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR

And Neutral Point-of-View:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPV

As far as you stuff goes, if you send me the sources, I'd be happy to be the one to write you up! Problem sidestepped.

And I'd be glad to work with you on this overall project as well. You know far more about the subject, but I have more experience writing Wiki articles.

You can reach me by e-mail at maxx58585(AT)yahoo.com.

Joe Max, Thanks, I just checked out some of the wiki protocols, and as I suspected, were I to have written my own article, regardless of the references, the story would certainly have been redacted instantly on grounds of self promotion.

I greatly appreciate your assistance, and yes, I would appreciate any and all assistance with the wiki article you can, and are willing / able to provide.

I'll be intouch with you on your e-mail regarding the specifics pertaining to my media references.

Many thanks, and anyone else who wishes to weigh in on this is more than welcome.

'First generation' makes little sense in this context. The term 'generation' is applied in music to subsequent students of a musician.

Charlie, yeh, I'm just grasping at straws to find a better way of differenciating history's first thereminists from modern ones. Nothing's in stone here.

Thomas.

I suggest you draw out a time line and look at key events if you want to differentiate different eras of theremin playing.

Post-"Electronic Odyssey" would seem to be one clear differentiation.

Another way of slicing the cake would be to ask is if a thereminist plays classical or electronic music (or both.) This might be tricky to nail down - these are very loosely defined terms with a lot of overlap - I am using them casually here, and therein lies the basic problem of categorisation - any division of a continuum is arbitrary.

Gordon, Indeed. This is not going to be a walk in the park to do. Charlie D has provided me with an interesting time-line breakdown which seems to line up nicely with your suggestion.

Thomas, I will be unable to access a computer for the next month or so, but if you go ahead and write a draft of the article, I would be more than happy to take a look at it afterwards.